A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 1WHY TARGET WAL-MART? 12GROWTH MANAGEMENT & LOCAL CONTROL 6PARENTS & FAILING SCHOOLS 4

LIVING LIBERTYSEPTEMBER 2005 A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION

NON-PROFIT ORG.U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDOLYMPIA, WAPERMIT #462

Evergreen Freedom FoundationPO Box 552Olympia, WA 98507

Address service requested

E

Continued on next page

by Marsha Richardsven as many parents and concerned citizens here in Washington state are beginning to sense that something is terribly wrong with the public edu-

cation system, they are being told by education offi cials that schools are performing better than ever. The Super-intendent of Public Instruction issues a constant stream of congratulatory press releases. Newspapers transform these releases into bold headlines, and cheerful letters to parents travel home in student backpacks.

In reality, our state is facing an alarming crisis of low student achievement:• More than 61 percent of the 10th grade students who

took the 2004 Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) failed to score “profi cient” in at least one core subject (reading, writing or math). Scoring profi cient in all three subjects is a gradua-tion requirement for the class of 2008.

• One-third of our state’s high school students fail to graduate on time (and most of that one-third never do), and another third graduate only to discover they’re not prepared for the workforce.

• Of the students who graduate from high school and move on to community college, more than half (55 percent) must take remedial courses in reading, writ-ing or math.

• Only 62 percent of those who attend college in our state will graduate after six years. Most of the remain-der will drop out before they earn a degree.

• Businesses all over our state cannot fi nd enough qualifi ed employees among the graduates of Wash-ington’s schools.

Like most statistics, these are measured in lives. Gen-erations of young people are being thrust into adult-hood without the basic skills and knowledge they need to successfully pursue and achieve their dreams. The

results are tragic—for individuals as well as our state and nation as a whole.

Sadly, many individuals and special interest groups have chosen to ignore or hide our education crisis and its root causes. Their jobs, salaries, reputations and ambi-tions depend on maintaining and expanding the educa-tion system in its current form, and personal interests dictate their policy positions.

Some education offi cials are so determined to hide reality they’re willing to lower the academic bar to make it appear more students are meeting standards. Others sincerely believe the problems can be solved with a little (or a lot) more money and an expansion of current pro-grams—a tweak here and a tweak there. In other words, more of the same.

But what if the system itself is the problem? What if it can’t be fi xed in its current form? We believe this is exactly the case. The approximately one million students enrolled in our state schools represent many unique combinations of ability, ambition and aptitude. Yet the form and substance of their educational experience—its institutions, curriculum and schedule—will be designed as if student needs are generally the same. Their experi-ence will be determined in large part by politicians and

union offi cials at the state and federal level, not by the parents, teachers and administrators who know them best. We know from the statistics previously cited that this may work for some children, but not most.

The fact is, our public education system is a monopoly. This means students will never get the best quality for a reasonable price, because monopolies get their custom-ers regardless of quality or cost. Why do we accept this model in the delivery of something so crucial as the education of children?

The answer may be fairly simple. Over time, our edu-cation system has assumed the air of something sacred. Much of the policy governing education is more focused on preserving the system than ensuring the success of students. This is not accidental or conspiratorial; it’s the natural evolution of an industry that, like any other industry, works in its own self interest.

Our job is to put the focus of state education policy back where it belongs: on providing excellent academic opportunities for all students. In a successful education system, a large majority of students will be able to dem-onstrate profi ciency in reading, writing, mathematics

2 LIVING LIBERTY

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .This Issue

This teacher has been paying for the WEA’s politics for 30 years. She learned how to resign from the union

after receiving our recent e-mail.

Dear Michael,

Thank you and everyone associated with EFF.

I am so very glad you are here. Your efforts improve

the lives of thousands of state workers by providing

critical information. We deal with so many internal

and external stressors… [Y]ou are a “band of shin-

ing stars” showing us a path through the quagmire

of union and government wheeling and dealing.

I am indebted to you for the peace of mind your

time and efforts provide for my husband, my col-

leagues, and me.

Thank you from the top to the bottom of my heart.

Charlyn DeVoss Shipley

An employee with the Department of Social and Health

Services/DCS

THE UNIONS HAVE DESCRIBED EFF IN MANY WAYS, INCLUDING AN

“AXIS OF EVIL” AND THE “EVIL BAND OF

ZEALOTS.” SOME STATE EMPLOYEES,

HOWEVER, SEE US A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY.

-----Original Message-----From: Kathy Buchanan To: Evergreen Freedom FoundationSubject: RE: Summer checklist: get your union refund!It is about time!!!!!I have been paying dues to support candidates and political

agendas for 30 years that I disagree with!!!!Thank you

and the sciences, as well as a knowledge of our cultural, scien-tifi c and historical heritage.

We know what works in education. We know students need highly qualifi ed teachers and clear and rigorous academic stan-dards. We know we need strong leaders to ensure that schools are organized and motivated to achieve those standards. We know students and teachers thrive in small schools with a dereg-ulated and fl exible environment. And we know students need meaningful parental involvement.

Change, no matter how necessary and benefi cial in the long-term, is often diffi cult and uncomfortable in the short-term.

Daily routines must be disrupted, comfortable familiarity must be exchanged for uncertainty, risks must be taken, investments of time and resources must be made. Sometimes only a crisis can persuade people to take action.

A crisis is exactly what we’re facing in education.We get to decide: We can do nothing and continue to accept

mediocrity or worse, or we can embrace the changes necessary to move in the right direction.

We have also included the executive summary of our full report (“What Works? Creating Successful Public Schools”) in this issue of Living Liberty. Please feel free to share it with others!

EFF is undertaking a new project that requires your help! With your support, we would like to establish an EFF cable show on community television stations around Washington state. Shows would air a variety of speeches by our staff, events hosted by EFF, pre-produced videos, such as our “Man on the Street” and “Legacy” videos, and interviews with legislators and other key policy leaders.

At EFF, we value our members’ partici-pation and involvement in our projects, as well as in their own communities. This endeavor requires participation in both of those areas. We need citizens who are willing to be contacts for EFF at their community television stations. If you are interested in participating or have other questions regarding this proj-ect, please contact Booker Stallworth, our Communications Director, at (360) 956-3482 or bstallworth@effwa.org.

Please join EFF in this effort to broaden our outreach and advance our mission… because freedom matters!

Are you involved in civic or political clubs or organizations? Help spread the word about education reform solutions! Invite Marsha Richards to speak in your area! To schedule an event, contact Booker Stallworth at 360-956-3482 or bstallworth@effwa.org.

What Works continued from page 1 . . .

Act

ion

Ale

rt:

EFF Cable Show

3 LETTER FROM LYNN ALL STRIKES ARE NOT EQUAL

4 PARENTS DON’T HAVE TO LEAVE KIDS IN FAILING SCHOOLS SHOULD PENINSULA TEACHERS BE PAID MORE?

5 MATH IS HARD! CROSSROADS: CHOOSING LIBERTY AN INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN GOVERNMENT 6 GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND THE LOSS OF LOCAL CONTROL 7 JUSTICE DELAYED

8 EVIL BAND OF ZEALOTS: THE JR. VARSITY SQUAD RETURNS 10 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL RECOGNIZES NEED FOR ELECTION REFORM EFF LITIGATION UPDATE

11 WASTE WATCHERS L&I MISSING EQUIPMENT HOW TO TURN YOUR GOVERNMENT INTO A CASH COW

12 WHY TARGET WAL-MART? WEA THREATENS TO STRIKE AGAIN

13 CAN TEACHER’S UNION SPELL I-L-L-E-G-A-L? AN UGLY DIVORCE FOR THE AFL-CIO

14 OFFICIALLY IGNORED IT’S UP TO THE PEOPLE TO MONITOR THE 2005 ELECTIONS 15 PAYCHECK PROTECTION INITIATIVE PUTS UNION RHETORIC TO THE TEST

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 3

Letter from LynnLETTER FROM LYNNby Lynn Harsh

AAll strikes are not equal

s of this writing, Northwest Air-lines mechanics are on strike, Boeing machinists are poised to

strike, and the teachers’ union in sever-al districts have threatened to strike. It may seem that a strike is a strike is a strike, but important distinctions exist. Strikes are not equal in terms of moral-ity, economics or the law.

First, let me compare some of the similarities and differences between strikes in the public sector and the private sector. In the private sector, wages are part of costs a business plans to recoup through its paying customers. We customers decide if a price tag is appropriate by whether or not enough of us purchase a good or service.

For example: I rarely go to big-name jazz concerts anymore, not because my love for the music has waned, but because ticket prices are too high. As long as a signifi cant number of people disagree with me, ticket prices will remain high. That’s the marketplace at work.

Furthermore, while I might, on some occasions, pay $70 for tickets to a particular musical event, I will most certainly not pay that much for most events. I have the power to decide value, and I express that through how I actually spend my time and money. Musicians who believe their talent is more valuable than what I or others are willing to pay them could strike for higher wages, but the ultimate decision-maker, for the most part, is the consumer. We can take our business elsewhere with little or no economic damage.

What happens when teachers in our child’s school go on strike for higher wages or benefi ts? Ahhh. As consumers, we can perhaps make other choices, such as a private school or homeschooling, but great economic consequences are involved.

Furthermore, the value of a teacher is not directly determined by consumers. It is determined by politics. The salary for every teacher in this state is established from a salary grid created and adopted by legislators in Olympia. Very little salary variation is allowed under the law. When teachers strike for higher wages under the assumption they are worth more than they are currently paid, the question is, how do they know? How do we know?

Since the method used to determine teacher salaries has little to do with the quality of their instruction, the depth of their knowledge and the academic growth of students under their care, it is fair to assume that some teachers probably are underpaid. It is also fair to assume some are overpaid. Until we insist on using marketplace standards to determine value, teacher pay will be highly subjective and driven by politics rather than comparative value.

Moving one layer deeper, it is one thing for the law to determine an end, such as “it is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children….” That’s what our state constitution mandates. But providing for something does not necessarily mean creating it and delivering it. Government does not need to control the means to the end. Public education today is a system that government designs, funds, administrates and evaluates. It controls both the consumer and the producer. This is better known as a monopoly or, in my way of thinking, a monopsony. Both are bad for quality and cost.

Teachers are paid through our tax dollars, and we must render these tax dollars to government to pay for education services, even if those services are not provided well or at all, such as when teachers leave their classrooms for picket lines. We cannot take back all of our tax dollars and pay them to another vendor to provide educational services for our children. We are forced to pay above and beyond a certain amount of our tax dollars for other choices we might need or want to make.

Thus, the moral, legal, economic and practical impact of public sector teacher strikes is far different than when Northwest Airlines mechanics from the private sector go on strike. That is why teacher strikes in our state are illegal. That is why the non-prosecution of lawbreaking strikers is so reprehensible.

When it comes to private companies that must depend on satisfi ed customers for their survival, strikes, though inconvenient or worse, are a different matter. (It is diffi cult to use the airline industry as the best example of this, since it has been subsidized heavily by government.)

When Boeing employees strike, the company can make a determination about when it makes economic sense to concede and at what point they should up and leave to do business elsewhere. The company can weigh the salary and value provided by current employees against the salary and value of different employees. Management can make an economic determination. In the end, if Boeing does not keep its quality high and its prices reasonable, its customers can take their money elsewhere.

What happens to the argument of the Northwest Airlines mechanics that they are worth more than the company is willing to pay them if the company can replace them with mechanics who provide the same level of service for less cost? Consumers will ultimately make that decision. Since it is a rare occurrence when you and I are held hostage by one airline company, we will mull over safety issues and decide whether or not to buy tickets from that carrier.

Strikes can be defi ned as legal private coercion. (That is not to say all strikes are legal.) Strikes affect many different groups of people: employers; employees —union and non-union, part-time and full-time; customers; suppliers; and union offi cials. Who actually wins and loses among these groups?

Fascinating data from decades-long studies by the Employment Policy Foundation indicate striking workers, both part-time and full-time, generally lose thousands of dollars annually when all factors are considered. Even when management concedes to demands, employees nearly always lose real economic ground. Employers lose to the degree their relationships with customers and suppliers are compromised, but surviving employers pass the negative costs of a strike to consumers. Consumers lose because of higher costs, among other factors. Non-union workers, particularly suppliers, lose.

Who wins? Union offi cials, whose real gains during a strike are not measured in monetary terms or in the actual fi nancial gains they achieve for union workers. The gain sought by union offi cials is measured in prestige and where they end up in the union hierarchy. Union offi cials might lose ground for other reasons but they rarely lose ground because of a strike.

It is to the advantage of union offi cials, therefore, to promote adversarial relationships between management and employees. That is both the hammer and lever they possess.

This letter cannot be considered an exhaustive or comprehensive discussion about strikes, but I hope it provides some context for rethinking their existence and consequences.

A far more fundamental discussion is whether or not employment is a natural right or a contractual right. That leads to debate about property rights and the government’s ability to determine wages and hiring and fi ring decisions. Any legal positivists out there want to engage in a debate on these issues?

Until next time….

What people are saying about

Education Reformer

Very informative and educational! – W.P. I wish you would have com-mented in more length on the subjects you addressed. I felt like I was teased. I want more.– J.C.

This is pretty snazzy! But no sur-prise there.– J.K.

Great issue, again. I enjoy it so much. I usually “dig” down and print out articles to take to read and share. Thank you so for this great work! – C.P.

This is just so good. I wish we had something similar for Idaho. – D.C.

Great data. I know how much you had to scratch around to get it. – J.W.

Be in the loop! Sign up for EFF’s free education e-newsletter today and start reading the latest news about education reform in Washington. Then get involved.

To subscribe to The Education Reformer, email or call Marsha Richards at mrichards@effwa.org or 360-956-3482. She’ll be pleased to put you on the list.

The

4 LIVING LIBERTY

Parents don’t have to leave kids in failing schoolsby Eric Alozie

y son will start kindergarten at a public school this fall and, like every other parent, I want him to get the best education possible.

But I’m fearful the public school system in its current state will not prepare him academically for life in the 21st Century.

When I began researching the schools in Tacoma’s Hilltop neighborhood, where I live, I was shocked to discover how poorly they perform. Nearly half of the students attending the Roosevelt Elementary School, three local middle schools, and the Mt. Tahoma High School are failing to reach basic standards in reading, writing and math on the state Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL).

Among African-American students the problem is even worse, with up to 75 percent failing in some schools.

Where will these students be in fi ve or ten years?I wasn’t about to sentence my son to this kind of fail-

ure, so I went in search of alternatives. What can parents and other concerned citizens do to give our children and our community a better future? What choices do parents like me have when we lack the means to pay for private school tuition?

That’s when I discovered that a federal law passed in 2002 (known as the No Child Left Behind Act) provides options for parents whose children are in perpetually failing schools. It allows us to transfer our child to a more successful public school (with free transportation provided by the district), or to seek private tutorial ser-vices (also paid for by the district) from a list of state-approved providers.

When I learned about these legal options, I began to consider the possibility of opening my own tutoring business in the Hilltop. It seemed like a perfect oppor-tunity to contribute something to my community.

I thought Tacoma School District offi cials would help me pursue these options, but I was sadly mistaken. In fact, the more I dug into the issue, the more it seemed like some school offi cials wanted to make sure parents didn’t have a clear idea of their choices.

Under federal law, schools that fail to meet state-defi ned standards for two or more years in a row must send parents a letter notifying them of their alternative options. But you’d have to be a lawyer to fi gure out what some of the schools’ notifi -cation letters mean.

Schools are even instructed to front-load the letters with glowing reports of success, perhaps in the hopes that parents reading it won’t understand the true state of the school’s low performance, and won’t choose to exercise other options.

Why would schools want to do this? Money. When parents decide to transfer their child to a different school, or secure private tutoring, some of the dollars follow the stu-dent out of the failing school.

Frankly, that makes sense; the dol-lars should follow the student. After all, the point of public education is not to protect failing schools, but to ensure every student an opportunity to earn a good edu-cation.

Many public school offi cials say there isn’t enough money to allow parents these choices. Not enough money? The Tacoma School District spent an average of $12,189 per student last year. Annual spending over the last four years averaged $10,895 per student!

Can Tacoma school offi cials honestly tell us they can’t provide a quality education to students for $10,000-$12,000 a year? That’s about three times what most

private schools cost! What are they doing with the money?

All too often parents get excuses instead of answers to these important questions. Meanwhile, our children stay trapped in failing schools.

That’s not acceptable.We don’t have to sit back helplessly as our children

get left behind by public schools that aren’t providing the education they need. I’m sure not. My son’s future is too important.

Eric K. Alozie is a parent and paralegal who lives in Tacoma’s Hilltop neighborhood.

Tacoma Parent, Eric Alozie

eninsula public school teachers Brenda and David Aston were featured on the front page of the August 17, 2005, edition of The Peninsula Gate-

way, picketing school district offi cials for higher pay. They held signs reading “Our family qualifi es for W.I.C. and subsidized health care” and “Ask me about Job #2.”

The image of unfairly underpaid teachers is a compel-ling one, and it’s fueling several threatened (and illegal) strikes around the state. But is it accurate?

According to data provided by the Offi ce of the Super-intendent of Public Instruction, Brenda and David Aston each earned base teaching salaries of $45,169 this year (2004-05). In addition, both had supplemental contracts with the district, from which they earned $3,599 and $4,546 respectively. On top of that, Brenda’s benefi ts package (health insurance, etc.) was worth $11,232 and David’s was worth $11,319.

Thus, the couple’s total combined salary for the year was $98,483 and their total compensation package was worth $121,034. And that doesn’t include income David earned from his second job working as a custodian of evidence for a local police department.

Frankly, most families would be thrilled to claim annual income of $90,000 or more, with nearly full health coverage and a pension to boot.

Mr. and Mrs. Aston’s individual teaching pay is not outlandishly high—many professionals earn as much or more. But it is certainly disingenuous to present it as a vow of poverty in an attempt to garner support for the contract demands being made by their local union offi cials.

Further, Mrs. Aston’s claim that “with my salary, I qualifi ed for WIC (Women, Infant and Children) and

subsidized health insurance,” seems easily refutable with a quick online search. Eligibility guidelines for the WIC program provided by the Washington State Department of Health show that a household of six (the Astons have four children) may be eligible if gross annual income is less than $47,860. The maximum income listed in any eligibility category for a family of six on the state’s Basic Health Plan was $51,743.

It doesn’t appear the Astons, with a household income of nearly $100,000, would qualify for either.

The average teacher in the Peninsula School District earned a base salary of $47,939 and total compensation

We’d like to know what you think about Washington’s education issues.Are we spending enough? Are current programs working? Are schools safe? Are standards high enough? Should parents have more choices? Should teachers be paid based on performance?

Would you consider taking a few minutes to complete our online Education Survey? It’s available on our website (www.effwa.org) starting now through the end of September. Please tell your family, friends, neighbors and co-workers to weigh-in as well!

Should Peninsula teachers be paid more?by Marsha Richards

worth $63,406 in the 2003-04 school year. According to district offi cials, the teachers’ union is threaten-ing a strike if demands aren’t met for a 10 percent pay increase.

That pay increase would, of course, be paid by other working individuals and families in the district who earn, on average, far less. The latest Census Bureau data shows a median household income of $57,701 for families in the district.

Excellent teachers can and should earn excellent pay, but the claims and demands being made right now hardly amount to an honest debate about the issue.

M

P

If you know other parents who would like to get involved and help spread the word about parent options, please ask them to contact Marsha Richards at 360-956-3482 or mrichards@effwa.org.

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 5

n a recent man-on-the-street interview conducted by Seattle’s PBS station, sev-eral randomly selected adults from the University District were asked to answer the following question:

Allison, Bob, Ferhar and Jamal go to dinner together. When the bill comes, Allison multiplies by .25 to calculate her share; Bob decides to pay 30%; Ferhar will pay 1/3; and Jamal multiplies by .12 to come up with his share. Who pays the most?

a. Allison (.25) b. Bob (30%) c. Ferhar (1/3) d. Jamal (.12)

(Got your answer?)

The correct answer is C, Ferhar. He paid 33% of the bill, while the others paid 25%, 30% and 12% respectively.

Here’s the bad news:1. This is a sample question from the tenth grade Washington Assessment of Student

Learning (WASL).2. Not one of the American adults who agreed to answer the question on television

got it right. Most chose Bob, one chose Allison, and one was so overcome he couldn’t answer at all.

3. PBS was using this to prove how impossibly hard the tenth-grade WASL math test is.4. Two interviewees did get the question right, answering quickly in their heavy

foreign accents. One was from Russia, the other from Khazikstan.

And the good news: I began to doubt my own sanity, so I sent the question to a couple dozen friends with no explanation. Several of them sent it out to groups of their friends and answers began to pour in. Of the roughly twenty-fi ve people who responded, every one of them got the answer right.

Hope lives.

Sadly, many of the education offi cials in our state seem to care more about their own jobs, reputations and ambitions than they do about the future of the students who are relying on them. Not only are many members of the education establishment ignor-ing and denying the education crisis, they’re willfully covering it up.

Consider a claim about performance on the WASL. Then consider the facts.

CLAIM: “Washington’s students reached higher levels of achievement on the [2004] Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) than they ever have before. Outstanding gains were made in many struggling schools across Washington.” – Offi ce of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, press release, 09/01/04

FACTS: Many schools did show dramatic gains on 2004 WASL scores and news-paper headlines proclaimed the welcome news. Unfortunately, the headlines missed the meat of the story.

• In an effort to bolster scores, the Superintendent of Public Instruction lowered the standards required to score “profi cient” on the 4th and 7th grade reading and math portions of the 2004 WASL. The lower bar made it possible for individual schools

by Marsha RichardsMath is hard!

I

by Amy Bakker

Crossroads: Choosing LibertyAn introduction to American Government

his fall, EFF will be re-releasing its civics cur-riculum, Crossroads: Choosing Liberty. The pro-gram is a resource for high school teachers seek-

ing an innovative civics curriculum for their students. It compliments social studies and government classes and highlights America’s founding principles and their rel-evance to citizens today. The series includes a two-DVD set, a workbook for students, an answer key and discus-sion suggestions.

The Crossroads lectures are presented by Karen Rich-mond, J.D., who writes and speaks about the founda-tional principles of our nation and their relationship to current issues. A lawyer, writer and lecturer, Mrs. Rich-mond clearly explains these key principles of American government to a young audience.

Marsha Richards, the director of our Education Reform Center, introduces the program and briefl y explains its purpose: “Here in America, we enjoy freedom and pros-

to register gains of up to 15 percentage points in the number of students passing some grades and subjects, with no actual change in academic performance.

Increase in statewide percentage of students passing WASLOriginal standards vs. Lowered standards

Grade/Subject Before Standards Lowered After Standards Lowered4th/Reading + 0.7 percentage pts + 7.7 percentage pts 4th/Math + 2.1 percentage pts + 4.7 percentage pts7th/Reading + 3.7 percentage pts + 12.6 percentage pts7th/Math + 1.8 percentage pts + 9.6 percentage pts • Scoring “profi cient” on the WASL isn’t necessarily impressive. Depending on

the subject, students have to earn between 58 and 75 percent of the total points possible.

Points required to score “profi cient” on WASL(Points required/Points possible = Percent accurate)

Grade Reading Writing Math4th 27 / 40 = 68% 9 / 12 = 75% 33 / 54 = 61%7th 32 / 48 = 67% 9 / 12 = 75% 38 / 65 = 58%10th 32 / 52 = 62% 9 / 12 = 75% 39 / 64 = 61% • A recent study published by Achieve, Inc. (commissioned by state education

offi cials) compared content standards on the 10th grade WASL and similar exams in six other states (those that volunteered for in-depth analysis) to international exams and the ACT (college admission test). The study concluded that Washington’s: 1) writing standards are strong; 2) reading standards are “relatively strong” when ranked with the other states, but amount to 8th or 9th grade content on the national ACT; and 3) math standards are the lowest among the seven-state comparison, amounting to 6th or early 7th grade content internationally.

• Despite the low “profi ciency” and content standards, a signifi cant majority of

students in every grade tested failed to pass at least one section of the 2004 WASL (reading, writing or math). Among 4th graders, 56.4 percent failed at least one section. Among 7th graders: 63.8 percent. And among 10th graders (who must pass all three sections to graduate from high school starting with the class of 2008), 61.1 percent failed to pass at least one subject.

• The WASL is subjectively graded; it is not scientifi cally valid and reliable. Part of the problem can be seen in our Superintendent’s own description of the test: “The WASL uses far more open-ended questions than other states’ tests to measure the higher-level thinking, reasoning and communications skills intrinsic to Washington’s academic standards.” While it is valuable for teachers to assess these skills in their students, the model is not appropriate as a statewide, standardized measure.

The fact is, the public education system in our state is broken, and saying it ain’t so won’t fi x it. Every day we delay the adoption of true reform is a day lost in the lives of thousands of students who are slipping through the cracks. It’s time we stop protect-ing a system at their expense.

To fi nd out more about successful K-12 reforms, visit:www.effwa.org/pdfs/EdK12Solutions.pdf.

perity unknown to most of the world. But we can’t take it for granted. Many Americans today know almost noth-ing about our nation’s history, form of government, and economic system. As a nation of self-governing citizens this is dangerous because we can’t manage what we don’t understand. That’s why we created Crossroads: Choos-ing Liberty—so we can help give students the informa-tion and tools they need to become good citizens and wise leaders. After all, the choices we make as individu-als will impact our own lives, but the choices we make as citizens impact the lives of every American—not just in this generation, but for generations to come.”

Students are graduating from high school without a basic knowledge of America’s governing principles. With Crossroads, we hope to teach students the core principles of American government as established in foundational documents such as the U.S. Constitution and the Decla-ration of Independence. We believe students should to be

able to analyze the purposes and organiza-tion of our gov-ernment and laws.

By the end of the course, students will be aware of their rights and responsibilities as citizens of the United States and be properly equipped for their civic duties. The course will empower youth of today to make informed decisions about tomorrow’s government.

If you, or anyone you know, would be interested in learning more about Crossroads, please call us at EFF. If you have questions regarding the material, would like to help underwrite the cost of the project, or place an order for the curriculum, please contact Marie Giger at (360) 956-3482 or (800) 769-6617.

T

6 LIVING LIBERTY

t is important that citizens dismayed by the Growth Management Act (“GMA”) revolution begin to think “outside the box.” Traditional lobbying

notions—including complaining to the local plan-ning commission or the county commission—have proven to be ineffective. Likewise, traditional litigation approaches have been neutralized. Where one histori-cally could rely upon lobbying and litigation as effective tools for change in and of themselves, the perspective must now be broader. It is therefore time that individu-als and organizations concerned with maintaining local political control begin in earnest to educate the public about the vices of the GMA.

Subverted Citizen Control

Traditionally, unhappy citizens lobbied elected offi cials for or against policy decisions. State policy required lobbying of the state representatives. Local policy required lobbying at the local level. The cost to offi cials who ignored citizen interests was organized opposition in the next election. The vice of the GMA is not that “state control” displaces “local control,” but that citizen control—at both the state and local levels—has been neutralized.

The GMA commands local legislative bodies to adopt statewide policy (but applied locally) that the Legislature itself has never adopted. GMA created three

non-elected lay tribunals, called Growth Management Hearings Boards, to review local policy decisions. As soon as the city council or county commission completes hearings and adopts a new ordinance, some local environmental group challenges it to one of the Growth Boards. These highly organized and networked environmentalist groups argue that whatever has traditionally occurred on peoples’ land must now be stopped, and that the locally adopted legislation must be changed or stricken. The Legislature empowered the Growth Boards to reject local legislative decisions; i.e., to invalidate ordinances (that’s something courts rarely ever do). Thus, as the real policy makers, the three regional Growth Boards—appointed by the governor and each made up of individuals with a largely pro-environmentalist, pro-GMA planning ethos—are beyond direct control by voters. These Growth Boards, whose members are usually not even lawyers, tell local legislators to go back to the drawing board and change their ordinances. Local legislators are thus insulated from citizen dissatisfaction over Growth Board dictates, for they can point the fi nger at the State Legislature and at the Growth Boards rightly arguing that they [and the collective will of their constituents] are being overruled by these appointed Growth Boards. Local legislators are also correct that voting local legislators out of offi ce will do no good. A Growth Board Order is also binding on future local legislators. State representatives are equally insulated. They can rightly claim that all

“policy” decisions are just made locally, coyly ignoring that those local decisions are “trumped” by state-created governor-appointed Growth Boards. Again, they argue that “throwing the elected bums out” is no solution. Check!

Want to eliminate local bad policy by local citizen initiative or by referendum? Voters can’t do that either. The Courts, not the Legislature, have denied those at the local level. Nor can bad policies adopted at the local level be reached by statewide initiative or statewide referendum. Checkmate!

In essence, the GMA scheme has eliminated the “republican” (that’s republican with a small “r”) form of government as it relates to the policies governed by the GMA. What policies are affected? Just about everything that concerns local government: land use, comprehensive plans, environmental regulation, critical and sensitive areas ordinances, essential public facility siting (like sewerage plants or airports), shorelines, private property rights, farming, resource lands for agricultural, timber, and mining purposes, public transportation, housing, zoning, development regulations, wetland buffers, master planned developments, etc.

The Role of the Courts

Traditionally, unhappy citizens could bring lawsuits in state courts manned by elected judges with some assurance that their constitutional arguments would be decided on the merits, in a timely fashion. Our modern courts have, however, adopted many tactics to avoid doing so. Standing, justiciability, exhaustion of administrative remedies, ripeness and mootness doctrines are examples of such “gate-keeping” rules relied upon by the courts to avoid or delay constitutional scrutiny. At the local level, superior courts have even “recused” themselves ‘en banc’ (the whole superior court) from GMA constitutional challenges, leaving the decision-making to appointed commissioners or “visiting” judges, neither of whom are accountable for their decisions to the affected local electorate.

At the same time that the courts decline to entertain timely constitutional scrutiny, they render “interpretations” of the GMA in other actions that do not concurrently raise any constitutional claims. The result is that the “reach” of GMA legislation and the power of Growth Boards are found to be broader and broader. The constitutional limits of that Growth Board power are never questioned. The process is complicated by a number of other factors, including GMA amendments never considered in prior judicial decisions. The last 13 years show that Growth Board decisions establishing new GMA policy are rarely challenged by local governments on appeal. The GMA allows the Governor to sanction any local government that refuses to go along with Growth Board rulings. As soon as a Growth Board rules that a local government is non-compliant, the Governor can independently withhold tax revenues from that county or city treasury. The resulting history throughout Washington State is of local governments “rubber stamping” Growth Board edicts solely to avoid these fi nancial sanctions. Local governments that have challenged Growth Board decisions are slapped down in the appellate courts since they only bring challenges based on “best science” and environmental review issues, like how many environmental angels can you mount on the head of a pin. Never raised is the basic constitutional issue, that non-elected non-representative boards are unconstitutionally exercising authority over elected representatives. The appeals courts more often than not simply defer to the “expertise” of the Growth Boards in growth management policy disputes.

Public Ignorance Of The Problem

Few citizens recall that the crucible of the GMA was an initiative measure (I-547) that was soundly rejected by 86% of the voters in 1990. Still fewer citizens know that what we now call the GMA began

and THE LOSS OF LOCAL CONTROL

GROWTH MANAGEMENT

Continued on next page

Iby Jim Klauser

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 7

in a secret caucus held in a special legislative session in 1991; that the bill was drafted in secret; and that the bill was introduced directly following that caucus and was passed by both houses of the Legislature within 48 hours without committee hearings or recommendations, with no time to study the bill, and with virtually no fl oor debate.

Still fewer understand that the GMA adoption process has been incremental, with amendments occurring in virtually every legislative session since to provide additional “teeth,” such as giving Growth Boards power to “invalidate” local ordinances, reducing vesting rights, creating “best available science” requirements and more. Few voters understand that the real draconian GMA “revolution” has been propagated in Growth Board decisions alone.

The vast majority of citizens who voted in 1990 against Initiative 547 do not know that subsequent 1991 legislation was used as a pretext to eliminate local initiative and referendum rights entirely.

Citizens are also unaware that the growth management concept of “regional government” and “regional authority” is a scam perpetrated on them by politicians and never questioned by the media. The fact is there is no such thing as “regional government.” There is only state government, county government, city government, and municipal government. Anything that is “regional” is un-elected, non-representative, and unconstitutional unless it is specifi cally created by vote of the governed. The real purpose of regional government is to unconstitutionally raise local government debt limits to enable these unrepresentative regional bodies to fl oat bonds on Wall Street. That growth in debt limits is unconstitutional without a specifi c vote of the people.

The Impact on Builders and Land Owners

The GMA limits the availability of land for development except where it encourages “new communities” to be zoned and built outside the urban growth areas on large 1000+ acre tracts owned by resource corporations and their building divisions. These master planned communities become government-corporate partnerships that receive offi cial approval for zoning density on the average of 4 units per acre plus a sewer extension. All other rural land is downzoned

and undevelopable. You could own 100 acres right next to one of these master planned developments and you will possibly be allowed to build one or two units on your land (if they let you build on septic, since you are usually prohibited from hooking up to the MPD’s sewer). Today many builders who used to build 10, 20, or 30-unit projects each year can’t fi nd lots (many have become remodelers). If a builder can’t keep a supply of lots in front of him or her, the future is indeed diffi cult. The large MPDs can meter out their supply of lots over the next 30 years (with government approval, of course). Many landowners with hopes of using their property some day, now can’t. They only get to pay taxes on it.

Impact of the Consumer

GMA prohibits “urban sprawl,” a pejora-tive term with no legal signifi cance, that means any new home belonging to somebody else that you don’t approve of. GMA has created urban boundaries that have artifi cially limited the availability of new lots and has driven the price of housing out-of-sight for average people. It is a national problem, called “Smart Growth” in various locales across the nation. The National Association of Home Builders even has its own section that promotes this “smart” growth (smart for the large building corporations with a government-approved growth monopoly). People who work in or near big cit-ies like Seattle have a choice: they can pay very high prices for a single family house close in or they can buy a condo in town (also expensive). Most opt for an alternative—to purchase a single family home further

illiam Gladstone said, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” Having waited for over a year for the ruling from the Supreme Court

in two cases brought against the Washington Education Association (WEA), we plan to launch a new “Justice Denied” countdown calendar to highlight the delayed rulings.

The WEA was illegally using non-member teacher dues to contribute to political campaigns without obtaining permission from these teachers. (Non-member teachers are commonly called “agency fee payers;” these teachers pay a fee for the collective bargaining the union does on their behalf, but their dues are not allowed to be used for political purposes.)

In the July 2001 case, PDC v. WEA, the Thurston County Superior Court fi ned the WEA $400,000 for

their illegal actions and ordered them to return $200,000 to teachers. The WEA appealed the decision to the Appeals Court; the appeals panel ruled 2-1 that the main law in the case (RCW 42.17.760) was unconstitutional.

The Attorney General requested a Supreme Court review in July 2003. Ten months later, in May 2004, the Supreme Court reviewed that case and another lawsuit, Davenport v. WEA. It was fi led by EFF on behalf of the non-member teachers in order to force the WEA to return to teachers the $200,000 it illegally spent on political campaigns.

For over a year, we have been waiting for fi nal decisions from the Supreme Court. The longer justice is delayed, the longer justice is denied. The WEA should be held accountable for its actions, pay the fi nes and return to teachers the money that is rightly theirs.

out, where the prices are somewhat more reasonable. But this has resulted in our roads becoming jammed beyond their designed capacity. All of this thanks to GMA, a measure that was supposed to solve the traffi c congestion problem.

The Solution

Knowledge is key. The courts must revisit their decisions to consider issues that were not, and in some instances could not have been considered at the early date some important decisions were made. Citizens must compel their local government to stand up for the republican form of governance by refusing to go along to get along with this GMA scheme. The Governor might sanction some county or city government, but that may be a necessary step along the way to forcing the issue into the courts and litigating the constitutional issues that restore policy-making power to the people and to their elected local representatives. For the building industry, now is the time to get behind such an effort, since the current and future livelihood of its average members is at stake.

The irony is that since the early 1990’s, the US government has spent billions of dollars, and our sons and daughters have sacrifi ced their lives to bring mean-ingful constitutional democracy and local control to the Middle East. During that same period, Washington State has created non-representative “regional govern-ments” with GMA structures that impose higher prop-erty taxes and more regulation on us while we are no longer left with meaningful local control.

Author Jim Klauser and his partner Robert Rowley have a law fi rm in Seattle Washington and are associate members of SICBA. Their practice focuses on land-use and constitutional litigation in jurisdictions throughout the State and in federal court. They were the lawyers who in 2003 successfully argued the constitutionality of I-776 (the $30 car tab initiative) in the State Supreme Court and are again before that Court challenging the constitutionality of Sound Transit as a regional munici-pal government formed without a vote of the people. Bob Rowley previously represented Chelan County in its 1995 challenge of the State Growth Management Act’s constitutionality—a case that was dropped before any court decision—when then Governor Lowry imposed sanctions against Chelan County for even raising the constitutional issues. The governors’ sanctions were dropped as soon as Chelan County withdrew its case.

Justice Delayedby Kristen Mercier

W

“GMA prohibits “urban sprawl,” a pejorative term with no legal signifi cance, that means any new home belonging to somebody else that you don’t approve of.”

8 LIVING LIBERTY

Evil band oF ZEALOTS:The Jr. Varsity Squad Returns

Stephen Smith Mike Vernon Priscilla RiceDaniel Wang

ntern Stephen Smith joined EFF’s Communications department this summer. Stephen will begin his sec-

ond year at Bob Jones University this fall, where he’s studying Political Science.

Stephen is an outspoken individual, with a strong work ethic and set convic-tions. He enjoys working for EFF’s Com-munications Director Booker Stallworth and is happy here at EFF because he be-lieves in EFF’s core principles. “Stephen is the ultimate idea guy, and he is not shy about sharing those ideas with co-work-ers,” said Booker. Stephen is also a de-vout Christian, and cites the Bible as his greatest ideological infl uence. His hero is his father; he admires his leadership skills and the good example he has set, and values his moral knowledge.

In the future, Stephen would like to pursue a career in law enforcement, start a family, and continue deepening his faith. If offered the chance to do any-thing, however, he’d like to have his own national holiday—“one that everyone gets off from work.”

aniel Wang is a 19-year-old in-tern from Bellevue, currently studying economics and law at

the University of Washington in Seattle. Daniel has a solid background in eco-nomics, a love of freedom, and respect for his mother and author Milton Free-man. He also enjoys rock music, playing his guitar and riding his bike.

This summer, Daniel helped EFF’s Mar-sha Richards in our Education Reform Center on a project called “What Works.” He also helped research and compile education statistics. Marsha said, “Don’t let Daniel’s reserved demeanor fool you; he’s confi dent and articulate when asked to explain ideas. I suspect he’ll be suc-cessful at whatever he pursues after col-lege.”

Despite his reserved demeanor at work, Daniel likes to joke around and have fun with his fellow interns outside the offi ce. He’ll be taking his lighter side with him to Europe this fall, where he’ll visit London and Paris before spending two months studying Astronomy in Florence, Italy.

ince our April profi le of EFF in-tern Michael Vernon, he has gradu-ated from Saint Martin’s College in

Lacey, where he received his B.A. in Po-litical Science. Michael is currently pur-suing a position with a number of think tanks around the U.S., where he can focus on international relations, specifi cally the European Union or Russia. Michael has a passion for national security and border protection and would like to further de-velop the skills he’s honed here at EFF.

Michael currently resides in Lacey, but he’s a native of Snohomish County and a 2001 graduate of Seattle’s O’Dea High School. A semester-long exchange at American University in Washington, D.C. helped Michael concentrate his in-terests in politics, as well as challenge his views on a number of issues.

In addition to his political/policy in-terests, Michael enjoys Japanese anime, listening to techno and house music, working on his car, and selfl essly driving one fellow intern to and from the offi ce (Thanks, Michael!).

Phot

ogra

phy

by Jo

el S

orre

ll

by Sarah Carrico

The Evergreen Freedom Foundation’s mission is to advance individual liberty, free enterprise and limited, accountable government. To accomplish our mission, we provide public policy research for state budget and tax policies; welfare, health care and education reform; and citizenship and governance issues.

It takes a lot of people, a lot of elbow grease, and a lot of support to continue making headway in this mission. EFF’s detractors might call this just another part of the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” but here at EFF, securing “the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” makes perfect sense, and a heavy emphasis is placed on the future.

The Evergreen Freedom Foundation’s Internship Program (both during the summer and throughout the school year) gives college students and high school seniors a chance to be exposed to an education and an experience unique from that of the traditional classroom. There is always work to be done around here, and EFF staff benefi t just as much as the students do. This isn’t a coffee-fetching, errand-running job: It’s a chance to learn, grow, and deepen a passion for individual liberty and free enterprise. The battle for freedom is a never-ending one, and without the help of our generous donors, preparing the next generation of freedom fi ghters would be impossible.

Meet the future of liberty…

riscilla Rice is EFF’s resident vet-eran intern, returning this sum-mer for her third tour. This time

around, Priscilla is working with Michael Reitz and Ryan Bedford in EFF’s Labor Policy Center, as well as with Jonathan Bechtle for our Voter Integrity Project.

A 2003 Northwest Christian High School grad, Priscilla now studies busi-ness management information systems at Gonzaga University in Spokane, Wash-ington.

In her free time, Priscilla enjoys cook-ing, spending time with her friends, watching movies and indulging her love for chocolate. She’s not much of a day-dreamer, but when asked what she’d do if anything were possible, Priscilla would like to create a comprehensive internet database of books, newspapers, and oth-er published materials. She’d like to make “massive amounts of information” avail-able to the world.

In the future, Priscilla would like to work, be married, and raise a family. Her greatest life goal is to “never stop learning.”

I S D P

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 9

my Bakker, a recent gradu-ate of Northwest Christian High School, has been with

EFF since August 2004. This summer, she joined EFF’s Communications De-partment, where she helped to produce our Crossroads video series. She also worked to establish cable access pro-grams, and helped to coordinate EFF’s campus outreach project.

Amy is good-natured and always ready to laugh and smile. When asked about her favorite part of working at EFF, Amy got personal, citing EFF President Bob Williams: “Even though Bob is the president of EFF, he treats us all as equals. He’s passionate and dedicated, but he makes us all feel comfortable. He makes working at EFF a pleasure.” (Her fellow interns resolutely concur.)

According to EFF’s Booker Stallworth, “Amy has not only been willing to take on one challenge after another, but has taken them on with an enthusiasm and professionalism that is unmatched. When Amy says she will do something, one can rest assured, knowing that ev-ery ‘t’ will be crossed and every ‘i’ will be dotted.”

In her free time, Amy enjoys the sun, spending time with her friends and family, and preparing to begin college courses this fall. She’s not yet sure what she’d like to study, but knows that the ex-perience she has gained here at EFF will be invaluable in the long run, “There are so many intelligent, helpful people here. Every day at EFF is enjoyable.”

daho native Sarah Carrico served as an intern from fall 2003 to 2004, and returned to EFF in January

2005 after a semester abroad at Mukoga-wa Women’s University in Nishinomiya, Japan. Sarah is assigned to EFF’s Waste Watchers project, where she researches and writes about government waste and mismanagement. Regarding the project, Sarah says, “My friends think I’m a little too passionate about my work sometimes. They’re afraid to mention anything that will compel me to say, ‘that’s a waste of taxpayers’ money!’”

A graduate of Saint Martin’s College, Sarah double-majored in political science and European history. Now that she is fi nished with her studies, she enjoys a variety of hobbies, including listening to music, reading, and language study (par-ticularly Japanese and French).

She calls Jason Mercier, her supervisor, one of her greatest ideological infl uences. “I respect Jason’s intelligence. When my friends and I are discussing free-mar-ket concepts and waste in government, I continually fi nd myself saying, ‘Well, Jason says….’ He shares his opinions with me, but always lets me develop my own ideas…I just happen to agree with his most of the time!”

Sarah anticipates her departure from EFF this August to be a bittersweet one, “I’ve learned more here than I ever imag-ined. My experiences at EFF have been invaluable; it will be hard to leave.” Sarah will return to Yokohama, Japan to teach English this fall.

wenty-year-old intern Aaron Mead hails from Woodinville, WA, and dutifully takes the

train back and forth three days a week to assist Marsha Richards in EFF’s Edu-cation Reform Center. Marsha has been impressed by Aaron’s work. “Aaron is an intuitive researcher and a good writ-er. He keeps a dry sense of humor tucked up his sleeve and clearly enjoys mulling and discussing grand ideas.”

Aaron sometimes seems quiet next to his offi ce mates, but his eloquence and intelligence come out with little effort (he’s an accomplished collegiate debat-er), and his pleasant nature makes Aaron a perfect fi t here at EFF.

When asked why he wanted to work at EFF, Aaron said he’s a just fi rm be-liever in liberty. He counts Friedrich von Hayek as his greatest ideological infl uence and cites the rule of law and good stewardship as ideas closest to his heart.

In his future, Aaron is considering law school. He’d like to be a congressional staffer eventually, but cites “president of the CATO Institute” and “ESPN Sports-caster” as his loftier dream jobs.

Aaron will return to Hillsdale College this fall where he studies political economics.

All of EFF’s interns would like to extend a big THANK YOU! to the staff of EFF for showing us that freedom really does matter, and to our donors, because without you, none of our work would be possible! So from Amy, Sarah, Aaron, Priscilla, Steven, Michael, and Daniel:

THANKS, EVERYONE!

Amy BakkerSarah Carrico Aaron Mead

“Don’t let Daniel’s reserved demeanor fool you; he’s confident and articulate when asked to explain ideas. I suspect he’ll be successful at whatever he pursues after college.”

“My friends think I’m a little too passionate about my work sometimes. They’re afraid to mention anything that will compel me to say, ‘that’s a waste of taxpayers’ money!’”

“Aaron is an intuitive researcher and a good writer. He keeps a dry sense of humor tucked up his sleeve and clearly enjoys mulling and discussing grand ideas.”

I A T

10 LIVING LIBERTY

ashington’s election of 2004 may be a joke to much of the nation, but legislators from other states are realizing that similar problems can

happen anywhere. During the fi rst week of August, EFF president Bob Williams traveled to the Dallas suburb of Grapevine, Texas, to speak on the need for election reform. The forum was the national conference of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

ALEC is a national organization of state legislators who support Jeffersonian principles of limited government, free enterprise and tax and spending limits. ALEC believes that “the powers of government are derived from, and assigned to, fi rst the People, then the States, and fi nally the National Government.” More than 2,400 legislators are members of ALEC. In addition to Bob’s participation, EFF was represented at the conference by Communications Director Booker Stallworth, Senior Vice President Lynn Harsh, and Bob’s wife, Jane.

Bob was asked to assist ALEC in developing “Best Practices” for state legislators on election reform. He made two presentations at the conference in Grapevine, in which he discussed EFF’s draft report on best practices for election laws from around the country. The report focused on several key areas, including: • voter registration requirements;• statewide voter registration database;• voting practices which include voter identifi cation

at the polls, provisional ballots, absentee voting and military ballots;

• voting machine testing and certifi cation; and• election contests.

In recognition of his knowledge and experience on this issue, Bob was named the Technical Advisor to ALEC’s Election Task Force.

EFF believes the serious problems in our voter registration system require a 100 percent re-registration of all voters, a requirement that new registrants provide proof of citizenship, and a requirement that registration be made in a voter’s legal name. On Election Day, voters should be required to show proof of identifi cation with photo and signature identifi cation prior to voting at the

ne of the lessons we have learned over the years is that justice often moves at a very slow pace. The Evergreen Freedom Foundation has several on-

going court cases, some of which have been in existence for years. Here is a brief update on our pending litigation.

Public Disclosure Commission v. Washington Edu-cation Association

In August 2000, EFF fi led a complaint with the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) alleging that the Wash-ington Education Association (WEA) was illegally us-ing non-member dues for political purposes. After a staff investigation, the PDC referred the case to the at-torney general for prosecution.

In July 2001, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Tabor found the WEA guilty of breaking the law by us-ing non-member dues for political purposes. He fi ned the union $400,000 and ordered it to return another $200,000 to teachers.

The WEA appealed, and in June 2003 the Court of Ap-peals (Div. II) overturned the trial court decision, say-ing the union’s “right” to collective speech trumps the rights of non-member teachers to be free from forced political contributions.

After hearing from 500 EFF members and concerned citizens, then-Attorney General Gregoire decided to ap-peal the case to the state Supreme Court. The Court heard oral arguments on the case May 27, 2004. At trial, the WEA lawyer argued that the union had a right to use dues for politics unless members specifi cally objected. Justice Richard Sanders pointed out the law requires the union to get “affi rmative authorization” before using dues for politics. “The union doesn’t get my money un-less I say ‘okay,’” he said. “You can’t just sit over there and say, ‘Well, I’ve asked Richard for his wallet and he hasn’t said anything, so I’ll just come over and get it.’”

We are still awaiting a ruling in this case. A good de-cision will reinstate the fi ne against the WEA and will

require the union to seek permission before using dues for politics.

Davenport v. Washington Education AssociationWhile the attorney general is bringing an action against

the WEA for violations of the law, until it is resolved, the state is unable to request refunds for the 5,000 to 8,000 teachers whose money was improperly spent.

The Evergreen Freedom Foundation and the National Right to Work Foundation launched a class action law-suit in order to seek a refund for these teachers. At trial, the WEA argued it has “no fi duciary duty” to the peo-ple it represents. In a preliminary ruling, the trial court judge ruled teachers have a right to sue, which the WEA appealed.

On appeal, the Davenport class action suit was con-solidated with the PDC v. WEA case and was thrown out by the Court of Appeals. We appealed this decision along with the attorney general’s case, and presented ar-guments before the state Supreme Court in May 2004.

This case is also awaiting a decision. If the Supreme Court hands down a good decision we can move for-ward with the trial and seek a refund for teachers.

Evergreen Freedom Foundation v. National Educa-tion Association

While the two cases against the WEA were being ap-pealed, we fi led a complaint against the National Educa-tion Association (NEA) in January 2002 for commit-ting the same type of violations for which the WEA was cited.

When the PDC recommended that the attorney gen-eral settle the case instead of prosecuting, EFF decided to fi le its own citizen’s action lawsuit in April 2002. A trial judge ruled that EFF had no standing to bring the lawsuit. Subsequently, the attorney general sued the NEA in October 2002 (State of Washington v. National Education Association).

EFF appealed the “no standing” ruling, and in Decem-ber 2003 the Court of Appeals ruled the trial judge had improperly dismissed our case.

At this time, both cases against the NEA are on hold, awaiting a ruling by the state Supreme Court on wheth-er the WEA violated the law. If the Court fi nds that the law is constitutional we will be able to move forward in prosecuting the NEA for its violations here in Wash-ington.

Initiative 601 lawsuitOn July 19, 2005, we fi led a lawsuit to preserve the

Initiative 601 spending limits, after the Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature could exempt itself from the people’s right to a referendum on a bill gutting the two-thirds majority required to raise taxes.

The case is currently before the Snohomish County Superior Court and is awaiting a ruling.

We are participating in this lawsuit with the Wash-ington Farm Bureau, the National Federation of Inde-pendent Business, the Washington State Grange, the Building Industry Association of Washington, and the Washington Association of REALTORS.

The suit asks the court to invalidate new taxes that were passed without a vote of the people, as required under a section of I-601 that remains in place. The suit also asks the court to invalidate the law that scrapped the requirement of a two-thirds majority vote to raise taxes.

Another portion of the lawsuit accuses the legislature of shifting $250 million from one account to another for the sole purpose of artifi cially increasing the state’s adopted expenditure limit.

Any type of ruling in our favor by the court could call into question the entire budget and force a special ses-sion of the legislature to raise taxes following the proper procedure. A victory on the SB 6078 challenge will re-sult in the old growth factor being back in place.

The 2005 primary is upon us, and the general election is following closely. During the Chelan County election contest, Judge Bridges said, “The voters of this state are in a position to demand of their executive and legislative bod-ies that remedial measures have been instituted immediately.”

EFF is planning to conduct training sessions for volunteer observers in the weeks leading up to the 2005 general election. These sessions will be open to any citizen concerned about the integrity and security of elections in our state, who is will-ing to serve as an observer on Election Day. EFF will ask each volunteer to report back on their observations to give us an on-the-ground look at the current state of elections in Washington. This will help us tremendously in our effort to bring integrity back to Washington’s election system.

Please contact EFF at 360-956-3482 if you are interested in serving as an observer for the 2005 general election or if you hear of problems occur-ring in the primary election. You may also email us at effwa@effwa.org.

Legislative Council recognizes need for election reformby Jonathan Bechtle

W

EFF Litigation Updateby Michael Reitz

O

WashingtonGrassroots

ALERT

polls or by mail. Mexico and Iraq both require this type of identifi cation prior to voting. If they can do it, so can we.

EFF is committed to cleaning up the election system and restoring integrity to the elections. Election fraud exists because we, the people, don’t demand that election problems be cleaned up and that election offi cials be held accountable and responsible. EFF will not give up until we restore that accountability.

Following the Grapevine conference, Bob was invited to address the ALEC state and national policy summit in December, which will be held in Washington, D.C. At that time, he will provide an update on the “Best Practices” report.

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 11

erhaps the favorite impression that most politi-cians like to leave with their constituents these days is that they “create jobs.”

When businesses hint that they may relocate or expand operations in another state, elected offi cials there are quick to offer companies money and assets that they have taken from taxpayers. They call such gifts “incen-tives.” Politicians love incentives so much that they sometimes will create a specifi c law and maybe even call for a special session of their state legislature just to award an individual company the fruits of their stolen generosity.

Last November, Gov. Mike Easley called North Car-olina’s General Assembly into a special session, where it approved $242 million in tax breaks and fi nancial incentives to entice Dell Corp. to locate its next assem-bly plant in Winston-Salem. Easley’s lieutenants told lawmakers that any changes to Dell-favored legislation would kill the deal between the state and the company. The one-day session was held two days after last year’s election, but announced beforehand to maximize the political benefi t.

Two years ago, Washington state’s legislature passed $3.2 billion in special incentives in order to keep Boeing Corp.’s new 7E7 assembly plant. Lawmakers apparently learned their lesson after the company abandoned Seat-tle in favor of Chicago in 2001, where it established a new headquarters in exchange for $63 million in incen-tives from the Windy City and the state of Illinois.

Such special deals have multiplied in popularity to the point where corporations now help each other learn how to extract as much money as possible from states. In March 2004, dozens of large corporation lobbyists, at the annual meeting of the State Government Affairs Coun-cil in Savannah, Ga., witnessed a presentation titled: “Turning Your State Government Relations Department from a Money Pit into a Cash Cow.” The lecture was co-delivered by Michael Press, national director of Ernst & Young’s Business Incentives Practice and Robin Stone, former vice president of state and local govern-ment relations for Boeing. Stone helped Boeing get its deal in Chicago and is now Alabama Gov. Bob Riley’s director of legislative affairs. Ernst & Young negotiated Boeing’s incentives in Illinois.

Under this scenario, campaign contributions might be nice icing on the cake, but they aren’t really neces-sary. Politicians are delivering the big favors to big busi-nesses, while corporations credit lawmakers for “creat-ing jobs” in their community. What is a political dona-tion like that worth? It’s priceless.

ome have lost car keys. Some have lost dogs. According the State Auditor’s Offi ce (SAO), the Washington Department of Labor and Industries

(L & I) has lost at least $261,000 worth of equipment in the last few years. Until now, L & I lacked a set pro-cedure to search for missing equipment. This isn’t just paper clips and staplers: L & I inventory records show missing laptop computers, digital cameras and cam-corders.

For an agency with a $21 million equipment inventory, maybe $261,000 seems a paltry amount, but last year’s SAO’s Accountability Report seemed to think it important enough to mention. Besides, in a state with a $2.2 billion budget gap, a quarter million in taxpayer’s money could be better spent.

The SAO’s 2003 Accountability Report states the ‘Cause of Condition’ for L & I’s lack of oversight:

Waste Watchersby Sarah Carrico

L&I missing equipment

“The Department (L & I) stated it believes reasonable searches were performed even though no evidence of these searches could be found.

“The Department’s offi cials state they did not immediately report the losses to the State Auditor’s Offi ce because they were unaware of the reporting requirements.”

Section 43.09.185 of the Revised Code of Washington states:

“State agencies and local governments shall immediately report to the state auditor’s offi ce known or suspected loss of public funds or assets or other illegal activity.”

Besides, exactly how does one lose a quarter of a million dollars of equipment? There can’t be too many places a laptop computer could be hiding.

Let L & I know you expect responsibility. Contact the Department of Labor and Industries toll-free at 1-800-547-8367.

Which is why it is all the more amazing that enough Maryland legislators passed a special law against Wal-Mart, which required that the retail giant would have to contribute a minimum (8 percent) portion of its payroll expenses towards health care benefi ts for its employees. Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich vetoed the legislation last month, calling it “a tax bill disguised as a health bill,” but he could be overridden next year.

The trend is disturbing. Lawmakers are becoming more audacious as they exercise their powers to ben-efi t their friends or to harm those who won’t play their political game.

Even though many corporations are now getting comfortable with incentives schemes, politicians are now aiming their special legislation weapon at compa-nies who aren’t making them look good enough. Since Wal-Mart doesn’t create the kinds of jobs that elected

offi cials can take credit for, some Maryland lawmak-ers want the company to pay the price for more medical benefi ts, so politicians can get the praise for that instead. It’s extortion, really, and consumers get shafted because the costs are passed to them.

That’s the way it always is when politicians meddle in the free market. They have to get their cut out of the deal at the expense of the less infl uential. If it’s not shoppers at Wal-Mart, then it’s small businesses and individuals paying higher taxes to subsidize corporate welfare.

Special legislation that helps or harms individual com-panies is an endangerment to freedom. The practice may soon morph into unique, targeted laws that grant the right to do business in the fi rst place.

Paul Chesser is an associate editor for the John Locke Foundation, a North Carolina free-market think tank. (http://www.johnlocke.org)

by Paul Chesser (reprinted with permission)

How to turn your government into a cash cowSpecial legislation that helps or harms individual companies is an endangerment to freedom

P

S

12 LIVING LIBERTY

very elected offi cial in Washington State swears an oath to uphold the State’s Con-stitution and laws. As the State’s top legal

offi cer, the Attorney General’s primary constitutional responsibility is to defend our State’s laws, including the statutory prohibition on strikes.” – Attorney Gen-eral Rob McKenna

The Washington Education Association (WEA) poses as a champion of education, yet the teachers’ union routinely and illegally harms communities and students by striking. As of this writing, union offi cials are threatening strikes in several school districts.

n Aug. 10, the National Education Association, the country’s largest teachers’ union, partici-pated in a nationwide back-to-school boycott of

Wal-Mart. The “Send Wal-Mart Back to School” cam-paign urges parents and teachers to pledge not to shop for school supplies at the bargain retailer.

Why would the NEA, an organization whose stated mission is to “promote the cause of quality public edu-cation and advance the profession of education,” care about where parents buy pencils and backpacks?

The union says Wal-Mart employees are forced to seek government-subsidized health care benefi ts, which drains billions from public money that could be used to fund public education.

The boycott is little more than a union solidarity move, coming at a time when Big Labor’s numbers are plum-meting and the movement is experiencing the shock-waves of the rift within the AFL-CIO.

Fifty years ago, one in three workers belonged to a union. Today, only 12 percent of the American work-force is unionized. Unions are so desperate for members they are attempting to organize unique sectors of the workforce such as babysitters and Ivy League student teaching assistants.

Why target Wal-Mart?by Michael Reitz

WEA threatening to strike againby Aaron Mead

Not only are organized labor’s numbers dropping, but a poll recently conducted by Zogby International and the Public Service Research Foundation shows that efforts to organize new sectors of workers will be an uphill battle. Of those surveyed, 56 percent of nonunion workers said they would vote against bringing a union into their workplace.

As the nation’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart is an attrac-tive target, but unions have been unsuccessful in orga-nizing the company’s employees. One of the unions unsuccessfully attempting to organize Wal-Mart, the United Food and Commercial Workers, decided to ini-tiate an anti-Wal-Mart campaign.

At the NEA’s annual gathering in July, the gov-erning body approved a resolution to join UFCW’s anti-Wal-Mart campaign. The back-to-school boy-cott kicked off in over 30 cities around the country.

The NEA is free to boycott Wal-Mart if it disagrees with the company’s political orien-tation, but let’s be clear: The

The National Education Association recently launched a nationwide back-to-school boycott of Wal-Mart, holding press conferences in 30 cit-ies. EFF’s Labor Policy Center responded with an opinion editorial discussing the boycott. This op-ed was originally printed in the Boston Globe on August 16.

But as the Marysville strike extended a record forty-nine days, pushing the school year well past the Fourth of July, we saw the danger of allowing unions to have a stranglehold over democratic decision-makers in the education system. For students, the consequences were devastating. The strike threatened everything from summer plans to life dreams, as students lost precious time to pursue competitive scholarships and, in at least one case, an appointment to a prestigious military academy.

Union offi cials proved their disregard for victims of the strike when parents fi led a lawsuit to end it. A union lawyer argued bluntly: “The parents have absolutely no standing to bring this lawsuit.” They “are not real parties in interest to any dispute between the Marysville School District and the Marysville Education Association.”

This combination of pro-education rhetoric and a ruthless negotiating strategy gives the union tremendous leverage. It is, in fact, illegal for teachers to strike in Washington, but public offi cials fear taking strong stands against the WEA. The union benefi ts from confl ict between school boards and teachers, since such confl ict is the source of its negotiating power.

Union offi cials will continue orchestrating strikes so long as they fi nd benefi t in the practice. In Marysville, the union succeeded in replacing three school board members and the superintendent and, as EFF predicted at the time, the union’s success there has become a springboard for other strikes.

Meanwhile, the WEA’s tactics only indirectly take into account the interests of teachers (where they don’t confl ict with the union’s interests), and directly oppose the interests of communities and students.

Courts have ruled repeatedly that teacher strikes are against the law. In 24 of 29 cases recorded by the Public

Employment Relations Commission, courts have issued injunctions to end strikes. The union never appeals these rulings to higher courts for fear of setting a sterner precedent. No court has ever ruled that teachers have the right to strike.

There is good reason for the law prohibiting teacher strikes. Public education is enshrined in the Washington State Constitution as the paramount duty of state government. Teachers’ unions, by striking, can hold students hostage in negotiations against a school board, thus gaining enormous leverage. After all, most parents feel they have nowhere else to turn.

In most cases, injunctions against strikes are never sought. Playing on the natural and healthy respect people have for teachers, union offi cials claim a moral legitimacy to go beyond the law. This respect and sympathy is understandable, since most teachers are passionately committed to their jobs. Nevertheless, the prevailing inaction allows union offi cials to undermine the rule of law and exploit students and parents in the drive for higher teacher salaries.

The rule of law is not an abstract principle. It allows individuals and governments to plan based on a common understanding of the limits placed on everyone else in society. The families of Marysville made plans based on expectations about when the school year would start and end. Elected school board members, too, are less able to make long-term plans to improve education if the union can take them by surprise anytime it chooses.

If they want to avoid becoming the next Marysville, school board members need to act quickly. They should make it clear right now that strikes are illegal and that they are willing to go to court if necessary to stop one. They should make it clear that students will no longer be pawns in the union’s power grab.

boycott does nothing to improve education. The union is shamelessly using schools and children to generate public sympathy in a labor disagreement.

One can almost imagine the thought process: “The average citizen may not sympathize with the plight of checkout clerks or grocery stockers . . . so let’s get the teachers union to say Wal-Mart hurts kids!”

“E

“Courts have ruled repeatedly that teacher strikes are against the law. In 24 of 29 cases recorded by the Public Employment Relations Commission, courts have issued injunctions to end strikes.”

WEA offi cials were emboldened by the success of their 2003 strike tactics in Marysville. Early in the strike the union issued a short press release that stated: “Marysville teachers have been on strike since Sept. 2 over pay, benefi ts and other issues related to quality education [emphasis added],” implying that teacher strikes were altruistic acts that would ultimately benefi t students.

OContinued on next page

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 13

can it be that the political program of the AFL-CIO has become captured by the Democratic Party? I’m sure we’ll endorse Democrats most of the time. ...but the American labor movement should not be a captive of any party.”

Sadly, the power struggle between Sweeney and Stern will inevitably overshadow the real problems plaguing the American labor movement. With increasing global competition, an exploding underground workforce of illegal aliens and forced-dues employment contracts (in the 28 states without Right to Work laws) that compel millions of American workers to pay dues to a union as a condition of their employment, the future looks bleak for Sweeney. Top it off with a social agenda deeply unpopular with a substantial plurality of Big Labor’s rank-and-fi le members, and Sweeney and his allies will have their hands full.

“Union progressives” like Stern will inevitably chart a new course for their unions that focuses on grassroots organizing. The question is, will the AFL-CIO continue its single-minded courtship of the Democrat Party? Or will it streamline its mission by winning the hearts and minds of the American workforce by rejecting com-pulsion? The future of the American labor movement hangs in the balance.

nizing opportunities. Since 1956, overall union membership has decreased from 32 percent of the workforce to 12.5 percent. In the private sector alone, unionization has plummeted from 24.2 percent in 1973 to 7.9 percent in 2003.

Enter Andrew Stern of the SEIU. Stern chal-lenged Sweeney’s focus on Democrat politi-cal campaigns, and instead pushed for good old-fashioned organizing drives in the work-place. “We’re verging on irrelevancy,” Stern proclaimed recently. “We have to grow again.” Stern has pleaded with Sweeney for a shift back to the organizing efforts that built the strong labor movement of the early and mid 20th cen-tury.

Stern and Teamster President James Hoffa carried through with their threat to split with the AFL-CIO in a public and ugly spat that dominated national news coverage for several days. Stern and Hoffa were able to splinter off several other major unions, including the UNITE HERE, into a new union coalition called “Change to Win.”

Stern and Hoffa believe a major paradigm shift within union strategy will be critical for Big Labor’s survival. Most observers think this shift will focus away from Democrat Party politics, and place more emphasis on organizing, streamlining union bureaucracy, and exploring new avenues of political involvement previ-ously ignored by Sweeney and his team.

So far, Sweeney’s response to Stern’s proposed “para-digm shift” has been almost non-existent. His speech to the delegates after the split seemed anemic and bitter. National liberal operatives seemed almost universally disheartened during the split. Even noted left-lean-ing commentator, Eleanor Clift, on PBS’s McLaughlin Group, referred to AFL-CIO leadership as “male, stale and pale.”

In a further sign of desperation, the AFL-CIO is even laying off 80 to 100 professional staff members and canceling a major monthly union magazine. Sweeney’s team is apparently also considering cutting other tra-ditional AFL-CIO programs that benefi t rank-and-fi le members, a move sure to be unpopular in the months and years to come.

John Wilhelm, hospitality president of UNITE HERE, and a leader of the rebel faction, asked recently, “How

P

hoto

cou

rtes

y of

AFL

-CIO

John J. Sweeney addresses the 25th AFL-CIO Constitutional Convention

ocal affi liates of the Washington Education Association (WEA) in the Bethel, Peninsula, Clover Park and Mount Vernon school districts

have threatened school boards with illegal strikes over disagreements in current contract negotiations.

Washington courts have consistently ruled teacher strikes are illegal.

Thanks to an unbroken string of defeats in superior courts, union offi cials have never appealed a judicial loss to the appellate level, fearing a statewide precedent that would remove the threat of strikes (though illegal) from their bargaining arsenal.

Instead, the WEA continues to ignore clear case law in Washington and once again is positioning teachers for illegal strikes this year.

Superior Court Judge Joan Dubuque stated unequivocally in her 2002 ruling against the Issaquah strike: “It is this court’s determination, after reviewing the Supreme Court precedents of this state as well as the laws of this state, that teachers do not have the right to strike, and what is going on is an illegal strike at this time.”

Judge Dubuque continued: “Based upon the common law of this state, strikes by public employees are illegal. There is no express or explicit statutory right for teachers to strike.”

Can teachers’ union spell I-L-L-E-G-A-L?by Jason Mercier and Michael Reitz

L

An Ugly Divorce for the AFL-CIOby S. Alex Bohler, J.D.

The ultimate irony of the NEA’s boycott against Wal-Mart is that the union is asking parents to exercise a choice in their back-to-school shopping. Choice, how-ever, is the one thing the union opposes most when it comes to education policy and the teaching profession.

The teachers’ union aggressively opposes measures and policies that give parents more choices in the educa-tion marketplace, such as school vouchers, tuition tax credits, charter schools, and home education.

The NEA even criticizes the Walton family, the found-ers of Wal-Mart, for contributing to “anti-public educa-tion efforts like private school voucher initiatives and anti-public education PACs.”

Similarly, although the NEA represents 2.7 million education professionals, most teachers have no choice about affi liating with the union.

Instead, they are forced to pay union dues because of Draconian labor laws and collective bargaining agree-ments. The union then uses the dues teachers are forced to pay to fund a radical political and social agenda with little regard for teachers’ chosen political affi liations.

Asking parents and teachers to boycott a retailer does nothing to advance the NEA’s stated mission. Rather, it is a convenient means of political payback. Once again, the National Education Association has demonstrated that it is more interested in entrenching organized labor’s power than in promoting the quality of education.

uly’s AFL-CIO Constitutional Convention in Chi-cago delivered all the fi reworks of a tumultuous romance gone bad, with a melodramatic departure,

pleas for continued unity, and a barely believable public face of harmony. The AFL-CIO’s annual meeting marked the federa-tion’s 50th anniversary. Its 58 affi liated unions repre-sented some 13 million workers, and comprised the pri-mary political and lobbying muscle of the modern labor movement.

AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney found himself in the power struggle of his career with Service Employees International Union (SEIU) President Andy Stern. Sev-eral major unions that backed Stern left the AFL-CIO to form their own coalition, Change to Win.

How did things get so bad between such ideological soul mates? At the heart of the unrest is a debate over how to stop organized labor’s plummeting infl uence.

Sweeney became president of the AFL-CIO in 1995, promising he would reverse the labor movement’s loss of political infl uence. To that end, he led a ten-year cam-paign to amass big labor’s political muscle, which to critics like Stern, came at the expense of organizing new employee groups and companies (the kind of organizing that put Big Labor on the map in the 1930’s and 40’s).

With every new election since his election, Sweeney and the “old guard” promised a Democrat congressional takeover, and every time they failed. GOP majorities in the House of Representatives prevailed in every two-year cycle in the House since 1994, and Republicans won the White House in 2000 and 2004. President Bush’s victories, though close, were enough to pull several Sen-ate Republican candidates over the fi nish line in the pro-cess, further frustrating Sweeney’s failing strategy.

Sweeney has spent literally hundreds of millions of forced-dues dollars in direct fi nancial contributions to pro-union candidates, for professional staffers “loaned” to Democratic campaigns, direct mail “education pieces,” and massive “get out the vote drives.” Despite these mammoth efforts, pro-union candidates have consistently failed to win back majorities for Sweeny in either the House or Senate. The AFL-CIO’s efforts climaxed in 2004, when Sweeney fi elded 225,000 union foot soldiers in key battleground states.

In addition to its failed electoral strategy, the labor movement has seen a stark decline in members and orga-

Ruling on the 2003 Marysville strike, Superior Court Judge Linda Krese’s conclusions of law stated: 1. Public employee strikes are illegal under the common

law of Washington. 2. The MEA [Marysville Education Association] strike

violates the prohibition on public employee strikes and is an illegal strike.

Attorney General Rob McKenna affi rmed teacher strikes are illegal when campaigning for offi ce in 2004:

“Every elected offi cial in Washington State swears an oath to uphold the State’s Constitution and laws. As the State’s top legal offi cer, the Attorney General’s primary constitutional responsibility is to defend our State’s laws, including the statutory prohibition on strikes.”

Governor Christine Gregoire has also affi rmed teacher strikes are illegal. In a 1996 interview, Gregoire told the WEA:

“I am opposed and I have stated it publicly. We need to get the issue before the Supreme Court for a decision. If called upon, I would defend otherwise. It is a tough struggle based on [Washington] law.”

Union negotiators should not be permitted to hold chil-dren hostage and force district concessions with threats of illegal activity. Concerned parents can contact their school board members and urge the board to seek a pre-emptive injunction against illegal strikes.

Wal-Mart continued from page 12 . . .

J

14 LIVING LIBERTY

“Real ID” Act: A path to voter re-registration?by Bob Williams

e propose [to] convey [the] message that elec-tion reform has occurred

so what happened in the past won’t hap-pen again…” -Goal statement from a government contract for a statewide ad campaign.

This quote embodies a primary aim of a new media campaign the Secretary of State has contracted for at a cost to tax-payers of $2.5 million. The campaign fo-cuses on what has become a slogan for top election offi cials around the state: The problems of 2004 have been fi xed; voters can start trusting the system again.

Washingtonians should withhold their trust, however, until election offi cials start putting resources into implementing and enforcing the law, not just into public relations campaigns.

Changes have indeed been made on both the state and county level, but it is increasingly obvious that, while changes required by the federal government and the state legislature are being imple-mented, offi cials are reluctant to take the initiative to make those changes truly ef-fective. For example, federal law requires a new statewide voter database, so we are creating one. But state offi cials have ignored the issue of proving citizenship, thus allowing thousands of non-citizens to be grandfathered into the new data-base.

Lack of meaningful action is even clearer at the top levels of King County government. In late spring, County Ex-ecutive Ron Sims created a blue ribbon commission to study the elections pro-cess and recommend needed changes. The primary recommendation of the commission was to bring in a “SWAT” turn-around team to clean up the divi-sion. The director of licensing and elec-tions, Dean Logan, would move into an advisory role.

Sims ignored the recommendation of his own commission, keeping Logan in power and putting the turn-around team into the advisory role. Did any manag-ers get fi red for the election debacle? No. Instead, Sims moved two new managers from other departments into the elec-tions division, one of whom was from the natural resources and parks department. This action is almost guaranteed to add confusion to the process.

Ignorance of the continuing problem is not restricted to election offi cers, how-ever. Many legislators have also bought into the notion that all is well. In early August, Bob Williams, president of EFF, received an e-mail from State Represen-tative Jim Moeller in response to a speech Bob gave on the need for election reform. Moeller’s e-mail ranted at Bob, saying “Sour grapes Mr. Williams! …You are a Republican…Your candidate lost. End of story. People aren’t being prosecuted because there was no fraud.”

In an ironic turn just a few days later, Seattle was named by the non-parti-san American Center for Voting Rights (ACVR) as one of the top fi ve “hot spots” for election fraud. In its report titled, “Vote Fraud, Intimidation & Suppres-sion in the 2004 Presidential Election,” Seattle was joined on the list by Phila-delphia, Milwaukee, Cleveland, and St. Louis/East St. Louis.

ACVR is not the only group to note voter fraud in Seattle. EFF is also work-ing to expose the problem, most recently in the case of Betty Fletcher, a judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Mrs. Fletcher and her husband, a retired Uni-versity of Washington law professor, fi led voter registration forms listing the

Much of the problem lies in the fact that county auditors do not have uniform rules to follow. The Secretary of State has fi nally begun to enact the necessary reg-ulations to implement new laws passed in 2005, but the delay in writing the rules will likely lead to uneven enforcement among the counties. King County con-ducted poll judge training on August 12, weeks before the changes were approved. While county offi cials promised to up-date the judges on any new rules, the fact remains that the training was based on outdated regulations.

In sum, we do not agree with state offi -cials that the problems have been solved, and citizens of Washington overwhelm-ingly appear to join us in that concern. Strategic Vision, a polling company based in Atlanta, recently released the results of a poll on election reform. One of the poll questions asked respondents if they were confi dent Washington had overcome the problems that plagued the 2004 election: 17 percent said yes; 73 percent said no; and 10 percent were undecided.

If state offi cials are unwilling to make the necessary changes to ensure integrity in the fall elections, voters must step up to the plate. We need your help in moni-toring these elections.

back on their observations to give us an on-the-ground look at the current state of elections in Washington.

(2) The foremost statutory change needed is a complete update of the voter rolls—eliminating non-citizens, felons whose voting rights have not been restored, and the deceased. Our preference would be for a complete re-registration, with proof of identity and proof of citizenship required. While no law changes can be made until the 2006 Legislative Session, county election offi ces should be urged to take all steps possible to clean their voter rolls.

(3) We have urged Governor Gregoire and Secretary of State Sam Reed to make available to the counties all relevant state databases that can be matched against county voter rolls. This includes state felon lists from the state patrol, clerk of the courts and Department of Corrections; federal felon lists from the U.S. Attorney’s offi ce; jury lists of non-citizens from state and federal courts; and lists of illegal aliens who have obtained emergency services from the Department of Social and Health Services. We have received no response to our request. You can help by urging the governor and secretary of state to take these vital actions.

(4) State legislators are now beginning to formulate bills for the 2006 Session, making it a perfect time to call your representative and senator to urge passage of meaningful election reform.

Please be assured that EFF will not give up in the battle to restore integrity to the election system of our state. As someone who cares about keeping government accountable, you know better than most citizens how important it is that Washington state have meaningful election reform in order to avoid a repeat of last year’s election fi asco. Working together, we have a chance of bringing integrity back to our election system.

We look forward to working with you in this effort. Please contact EFF at 360-956-3482 to let us know if you are inter-ested in serving as an observer in the 2005 primary or general elections. You may also email us at effwa@effwa.org.

embers of the Washington State Patrol, several legisla-tors, and the state licensing

director, Liz Luce, recently met for a detailed briefi ng on the new “REAL ID Act” approved by Congress this spring. The act establishes uniform standards for state driver’s licenses, effectively creating a national ID card. Under the law, states will have to begin verifying people’s citizenship by 2008.

There are a lot of reasons why people object to this legislation: privacy concerns, security concerns, the whole idea of a national ID card, expense.

But it is interesting that bureaus of motor vehicles will be required to verify a person’s identity before issuing a driver’s license. Only citizens and legal aliens will be granted licenses. If states want to issue driving privileges to illegal aliens, as Washington does, they will have to issue a special certifi cate for driving that will not be valid for identifi cation purposes at places like airports.

Drivers will need to produce a birth certifi cate, a social security number, a valid “Green Card” (if they are non-U.S. citizens) and other paperwork that the

states will be required to verify. And state databases will be linked nationwide.

Remember, under the Motor Voter Act, state licensing bureaus must ask people if they want to register to vote.

If the law survives expected legal challenges, this may provide a new method for Washington and other states to clean-up their voter registration lists—eliminating duplications, removing non-citizen voters and the deceased.

The question that really needs to be asked, however, is why Washington offi cials can create a system to check citizenship or legal residency for driver’s

licenses, yet do nothing to verify the same information for voter registrations.

EFF will continue to work with state legislators to craft legislation requiring a complete update of Washington’s voter registration. In other states, the Department of Justice has given advisory approval to more stringent standards of identifi cation. In the likely event that our legislators continue to resist this update, it may be necessary to fi nd an appropriate vehicle for running an initiative. We are exploring that option, too.

M

by Jonathan Bechtle

Officially Ignored:It’s up to the people to monitor the 2005 elections

“W

“EFF will not give up in the battle to restore integrity to the election system of our state . . . working together, we have a chance of bringing integrity back to our election system.”

King County Administration Building as their residence. Not only is this a viola-tion of state law, but the county building is in a different legislative district from their home, allowing them to vote for candidates who did not represent them. EFF challenged their voter registrations, which the Fletchers then voluntarily changed. While we personally have noth-ing against the Fletchers, a federal judge and a law professor should not be allowed to commit felonies. Even more important, their registration is one that King County offi cials should have stopped and veri-fi ed. We were forced to spend time and resources challenging a registration that should never have been accepted.

(1) EFF is planning to conduct training sessions for volunteer observers in the weeks leading up to the 2005 general election. These sessions will be open to any citizen concerned about the integrity and security of elections in our state, and who is willing to serve as an observer on Election Day. The EFF sessions will be held in a half dozen of the larger counties, but packets of information will also be made available to volunteers who live in other locations. Our goal is to mobilize concerned citizens to observe the polling places, and the process of verifying and counting the ballots. EFF will ask each volunteer to report

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 15

e-GivingElectronic-giving (“e-Giving”) allows you to automatically deducted from your bank account or credit card and transferred donations electronically to EFF. No more remembering to send checks or buying envelopes and stamps. It saves time! It saves work! It’s easy to use! For more information on scheduling an E-giving donation, please contact Juliana McMahan at 360-956-3484 or visit us online atwww.effwa.org/contribution.php.

nion offi cials often sound like true advocates of worker free-dom when they are forced to

defend their oft ill-gained territory. Nothing, however, puts them more on the defensive and reveals their temperament like a strong paycheck protection initia-tive. This is the exact scenario in Califor-nia where Proposition 75, is on the ballot and the union propaganda machine is in full swing.

Unions have become engaged in a vicious battle against their latest foe, the “Governator” Arnold Schwarzenegger, and to date have had trouble maintaining their legitimacy. Labeling 2006 the “Year of Reform,” Schwarzenegger placed three initiatives on the ballot that are intended to strike at the root of chronic problems the state has faced for years.

While not expressly endorsed by Schwarzenegger, one measure, Proposition 75 is a paycheck protection initiative that prohibits unions from spending union members’ dues on politics without their permission. Prop. 75 ties in closely with the reform agenda of the other initiatives.

Union offi cials are up-in-arms over these threats to their power and are changing their rhetoric as needed to sweet-talk or bludgeon politicians and voters into agreement. Schwarzenegger has estimated that unions are even strong-arming union members into subsidizing a $200 million dollar opposition campaign. At the same time, union offi cials are telling voters that paycheck protection is not needed because they already meet the minimum federal standards and accommodate workers’ rights to not subsidize union offi cials’ political agenda.

The state of California publishes an offi cial voter guide in which proponents

Paycheck protection initiative puts union rhetoric to the testby Ryan Bedford

U and opponents of measures and candi-dates explain why voters should support or oppose a candidate or measure. Not surprisingly, the unions sued Proposi-tion 75’s proponents, alleging inaccurate and misleading arguments. Yet the com-plaint made the unions sound like they don’t have reason to oppose the initiative because they already amply accommo-date worker rights and are the premier advocates of worker freedom. “In sum, no California public employee is ever forced to join a union or to make a politi-cal contribution,” their lawsuit states.

Within a few pages, union offi cials con-tradicted their over-simplifi ed conclu-sion and admitted that union dues often include political assessments. “Some-times, a portion of members’ dues may be used to support political activities.” The complaint went on to name a few unions that charge a $0.50 monthly assessment and pointed out that those unions allow members to opt out of the dues without consequence to their membership status. However, the complaint did not reveal that the California Teachers’ Association (CTA) and California Correction and Peace Offi cers’ Association (CCPOA) also have monthly assessments of $5 and $33 respectively. Union offi cials further neglected to inform the court that these unions strip membership rights from those who refuse to pay the assessments and request that they be fi red.

The unions made two surprising admis-sions in the complaint through one of their expert’s testimony. The expert fi rst admitted that fair share fees—fees that workers must pay to compensate a union for representation—inherently burden free speech. Fair share fees are inherently oppressive because workers are forced to pay for services they did not ask for. Then the expert agreed that “no public

employee can be forced, over his or her objection, to subsidize union expendi-tures for partisan politics or for purely ideological issues that have no relation to the union’s representational purpose.”

In practice, union offi cials often force workers to subsidize partisan union expenditures. A blatant example occurred earlier this year when 800 CTA offi cials voted to force all 335,000 teachers to fund its $60 million campaign against the initiatives now on the ballot.

Finally, the complaint claimed that because the First Amendment prohibits union offi cials from forcing workers to subsidize their political agenda, no vio-lations ever occur. “[T]he United States Supreme Court has consistently recog-nized that the First Amendment protects public employees from being forced to join a union, make a political contribu-tion, or both. Accordingly, any sugges-tion to the contrary in the ballot materi-als pertaining to Proposition 75 must be stricken.”

It is as if the First Amendment waved its magic wand over unions, making all vio-lations disappear. This audacity should be laughed out of court. It is an insult to the judge’s intelligence.

As union offi cials scramble to change their rhetoric to cover for prior inconsis-tent statements, they say some of the most absurd and revealing things. In public, union offi cials affi rm with utmost convic-tion their allegiance to worker freedom. When out of the limelight, they revert to their true colors as they threaten workers into subsidizing their political and social agendas. California is well on its way to exposing union offi cials for who they really are, but the battle is far from over.

With your help, the Evergreen Free-dom Foundation has provided sample language, research and other assistance to advocates of paycheck protection throughout the United States, includ-ing supporters of paycheck protection in California. We will continue to do so as California and other states take steps toward true union accountability and worker freedom.• EFF wrote an Opinion-Editorial which

was published in the Orange County Register.

• Numerous reporters have discussed paycheck protection with EFF staff and have quoted EFF in more than six news stories in major media markets.

• EFF has been consulted and cited by the paycheck protection coalition and other policymakers.

• EFF has been consulted by the Legis-lative Analyst Offi ce for help writing the offi cial ballot description.

• EFF Labor Policy Center Director Michael Reitz made a declaration regarding the effects of paycheck pro-tection for use in a lawsuit regarding the offi cial voter guide.

“Union offi cials are up-in-arms over these threats to their power and are changing their rhetoric as needed to sweet-talk or bludgeon politicians and voters into agreement.”

16 LIVING LIBERTY

of the month“Quote” Evergreen Freedom Foundation

PO Box 552 Olympia, WA 98507

(360) 956-3482 Fax (360) 352-1874

info@effwa.org • www.effwa.org

Living Liberty is a publication of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation.

Editors:Lynn Harsh Marsha Richards

Publisher:Joel Sorrell

EFF’s mission is to advance individual liberty, free enterprise and limited, accountable government.

VOLUME 15, Issue 9

by Bob Williams with excerpts from Mr. Walton’s eulogy

“There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom,

intelligence and energy of her citizens cannot cure.”

– Dwight Eisenhower

Dan Steeleby Kristen Mercier

an Steele, EFF’s media assistant and cartoon-ist, will soon be heading off to college at Cen-tral Washington University in Ellensburg. He

recently completed his associate of arts degree at Cen-tralia Community College and will attend CWU to com-plete his bachelor’s degree in graphic design.

Dan started working at EFF as a graphics intern in the summer of 2004. He credits Joel Sorrell, EFF’s Multime-dia Specialist, with teaching him about the many com-puter programs we use here to make our communica-tions more effective. Joel says, “It has been great having Dan here to share his talent with us. Along with graphic design and layout, he excels in cartooning, video editing, HTML programming and photography. Dan has a good sense of humor and a can-do attitude.”

When Lynn Harsh found out Dan was a capable car-toonist, Dan started using his artistic skills to make sharp, humorous political cartoons for EFF. Our staff often has new cartoon ideas for Dan, and he has spent many hours putting our ideas on paper in a creative and provocative way.

When our new website was launched, Dan managed the day-to-day work of keeping our website up-to-date, accurate and effi cient. He also assists with the many high-quality publications we print each year, including the Living Liberty newsletter. Our Communications Director, Booker Stallworth, said, “Dan is a remarkable

young man. It has been simply amaz-ing to watch how far he has come in such a short period of time. He has gone from a bright young intern with a lot of potential to a valuable employee whose skill and professionalism as a cartoonist and vid-eographer are second to few.”

We will miss Dan’s sense of humor. Dan is a Slurpee fanatic and has proposed adding a Slurpee machine to the offi ce. He was hoping to share his favorite blue vanilla drinks with us, but we’ve been so busy we haven’t had the time to install a machine yet.

In his free time, Dan enjoys weight-lifting and skate-boarding. In fact, he says he would like to combine his eye for graphic design with his love of skateboarding by becoming a graphic artist for a skateboarding magazine.

Dan will continue to do cartooning and other media work periodically for EFF when he relocates to Ellens-burg. He says he would love to return to EFF when he fi nishes his degree, because “Everyone here is amazing! The people here are the smartest and kindest people I have ever encountered.” Dan added, “I will miss every-one, and thanks for having me.”

We appreciate everything Dan has done here and wish him the best in the future.

D

Nothing in this publication should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any legislation.